Re: [PATCHv4 2/2] iommu/vt-d: Limit number of faults to clear in irq handler

[Lu Baolu <baolu.lu-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>]

Hi,

On 05/03/2018 10:34 AM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 10:16 +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 05/03/2018 09:59 AM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 09:32 +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 05/03/2018 08:52 AM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>>>>> AFAICS, we're doing fault-clearing in a loop inside irq
>>>>> handler.
>>>>> That means that while we're clearing if a fault raises, it'll
>>>>> make
>>>>> an irq level triggered (or on edge) on lapic. So, whenever we
>>>>> return
>>>>> from the irq handler, irq will raise again.
>>>>>
>>>> Uhm, double checked with the spec. Interrupts should be generated
>>>> since we always clear the fault overflow bit.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, we can't clear faults in a limited loop, as the spec says
>>>> in
>>>> 7.3.1:
>>> Mind to elaborate?
>>> ITOW, I do not see a contradiction. We're still clearing faults in
>>> FIFO
>>> fashion. There is no limitation to do some spare work in between
>>> clearings (return from interrupt, then fault again and continue).
>> Hardware maintains an internal index to reference the fault recording
>> register in which the next fault can be recorded. When a fault comes,
>> hardware will check the Fault bit (bit 31 of the 4th 32-bit register
>> recording
>> register) referenced by the internal index. If this bit is set,
>> hardware will
>> not record the fault.
>>
>> Since we now don't clear the F bit until a register entry which has
>> the F bit
>> cleared, we might exit the fault handling with some register entries
>> still
>> have the F bit set.
>>
>>   F
>>> 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
>>> 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
>>> 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|  <--- Fault record index in fault status
>>> register
>>> 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
>>> 1 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|  <--- hardware maintained index
>>> 1 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
>>> 1 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
>>> 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
>>> 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
>>> 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
>>> 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
>> Take an example as above, hardware could only record 2 more faults
>> with
>> others all dropped.
> Ugh, yeah, I got what you're saying.. Thanks for explanations.
> So, we shouldn't mark faults as cleared until we've actually processed
> them here:
> :        writel(DMA_FSTS_PFO | DMA_FSTS_PPF | DMA_FSTS_PRO,
> :               iommu->reg + DMAR_FSTS_REG);
>
> As Joerg mentioned, we do care about latency here, so this fault work
> can't be moved entirely into workqueue.. but we might limit loop and
> check if we've hit the limit - to proceed servicing faults in a wq,
> as in that case we should care about being too long in irq-disabled
> section more than about latencies.
> Does that makes any sense, what do you think?
>
> I can possibly re-write 2/2 with idea above..

Very appreciated. I am open to the idea. :-)

Best regards,
Lu Baolu